For The questions is a matter of jurisdiction undisputed mix law and mix fact "state v. federal. " The legal right to trial by jury as declared in U.S.C., Title 28, §770 [now 1873] (Trial of issues of fact; by jury.) Establishing the judicial fact of common law original subject-matter jurisdiction for; "diversity of citizenship " between citizens of two different states and nationality. Involved in an "interstate commerce " conflict over a land dispute in controversy of the real party in interest. In which a county court trustee trespassed upon petitioners rights; while under federal review operating outside ones jurisdiction granting an illegal eviction, levying of petitioners goods, and order of physical arrest. Awarding the disposal of petitioners assets for the benefit of others. While "knowingly " aware they were party to this federal civil action that was on appeal in the Court of the Eighth Circuit. The "Appellees " retaliatory action was intentional and personal. Their "cause of action " is that of an "hate crime. " A cause shown by the lack of fundamental fairness of procedural and substantive due process rights. The American "Bill of Rights " Seventh Amendment is an guaranteed historical right to a civil jury trial under Federal Rule 38. A jury trial that suffer an interruption by deficiency. When the U.S District Court judge rested the case on a summary judge rather than honoring petitioners demand for a trial by jury. The judge's "abuse of discretion " caused injury as a matter of law, interference of treatise and breach of the U.S. Constitution. The "Appellees " interrupted the rule of law when they illegally carried out a federal adjudication in a state tribunal court. Their entry of a second small claims action was entered into the county court while under federal review. Issuing a administrative judgment in retaliation of this present federal civil action. "Appellees " breached state and federal constitutional procedures of due process. Ignoring the plain language of law; proper procedure for establishing jurisdiction. For without jurisdiction the court has "no power to act". Therefore causing injury to the U. S. Constitution and Indian Treaties national recognition of Indian Religious Land Use.

The (Appellee) trustee caused injury of intentional infliction and emotional distress by trespassing on rights; a deprivation measure under the 'treatise' "Clearfield Doctrine " international constitution commerce clause burdens of interstate commerce. The "Appellee 's" fail to recognizing that language is the key difference of statute law and common law jurisdiction. The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals failed to take proper consideration to all the facts and laws relating to the federal subject matter jurisdiction surrounding this dispute, (referencing) the "Substantial Right Doctrine " and "Administrative Law Treatise, " substantive and procedural conflict of interest of international, state and federal law. Evidence that bears on factual and legal issues of federalism separation of powers between judge and jury, checks and balances, pure questions of law vs. pure questions of fact: "legislative fact" is considered part of law interpretation and not treated as question of fact.

1. Is the "trustee" the real party to the controversy for the purpose of "diversity of citizenship " jurisdiction involving subject-matter under the "commerce clause " in a complete diversity between two citizens of different states and different nationalities in dispute of land rights?

2. Is the Seventh Amendment Right guaranteed under the "Bill of Rights " or granted only at the personal discretion of a judge?

3. Under the "Fair Debt Collection Practices Act" should a bar attorney and state judges be held accountable for false prophecy, fraud, peijury, harassment and abuse

Is the state or federal court the proper forum for this dispute?